Banning GRC walkovers

Until we see the total removal of Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) in Singapore, Tan Hong Ngan's is as good a suggestion as any:

I suggest no more walkovers. If only one party stands in a GRC, the poll should still be carried out. The lone party must win enough votes to secure the parliamentary seat.

The winning barrier should be set at 50 per cent plus one vote. If this lone contestant fails to secure the cut-off percentage, a second round of voting must be called. This by-election should be able to attract participation from the opposition.

A little background: GRCs have been instituted since 1988 to ensure minority representation in Parliament, and is a Party Block Vote system that is employed only in 3 other countries - Cameroon, Chad and Djibouti. The intentions might be noble at the beginning, where GRCs were contested by as few as 3 members in the team, but has swelled to as big as 6 members in recent years, effectively curtailing the abilities of opposition parties and independents to contest in such constituencies. This system also allows weaker, untested candidates to ride the coattails of more experienced or popular politicians into Parliament, often uncontested.

Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong has gone so far as to admit that GRCs favours the PAP. This is not news to anyone who has observed the electoral system in Singapore. Mr Tan's suggestion would only work here, and not in an established democracy that has a bipartisan system (like the US) or one where there is a strong multi-party presence in government, like that of Sweden, Canada or the UK, all of which run on the Parliamentary system that we use here.

It will, however, work in the Singapore context. I still favour the repeal of GRCs and a return to single-member constituencies in the long-term, but this suggestion, if taken up, will add an interesting twist to local politics.

Kong Siong Kwong has however objected to this suggestion, calling it unfair:

Mr Tan argued that 'this basic human right to choose one's leaders is denied to some because of the GRC system'. This may be a fallacy. The group representation constituency (GRC) system is not intended purposely and primarily to create walkovers.

[W]hy should walkovers be banned? What about being fair to the only nominee who is also Singaporean and entitled to his rights? It is inequitable to insist that this one candidate must be voted on and secure more than 50 per cent of the votes cast in order to establish that he has the support of constituents.

Mr Kong is being disingenuous: Mr Tan did not say the primary purpose of GRCs is to create walkovers, but this is obviously an effect that the PAP exploits, and exploits well, to its advantage. This system is skewed, but he did not challenge that, instead focusing on turning the idea of a electoral mandate on its head by asking for voters to be fair to the only nominees.

That's not how a democracy works. Nominees have to earn the votes, and a walkover, especially in a GRC with its high entry barrier, does not imply that the constituents have given their mandate to them. By holding the polls and making them earn a majority will we know the will of the voters.

That is our right, and that is how a democracy should work. It is not about being fair to those running, it is about the mandate, and holding them accountable, and making sure they have the support of the voters to represent them in Parliament.

If the ruling party does indeed have the support of the voters, Mr Kong can be assured that even in the polls for an uncontested GRC, they will emerge victorious. Until then, I would say the GRC system is neither honourable nor pragmatic for Singaporeans.

Update: The Kent Ridge Common also has an article by Christopher Wong pushing the idea, and it's worth reading.